I never even knew that about FDR. Say what you will about FDR but he was 10,000 times the president Bush is. I can see where her arguement is coming from too. Perhaps it was... slightly... arrogant to have a lavish party during a time of war, especially if it is a war that hasn't really been settled yet. I really do think that if our troops are in harms way we really should give them all the resources they need to keep them safe........ *hopes I am not trolling, but the link was interesting*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I thought Judy Bachrach was looking for a fight . . . trolling herself, basically. That "news" piece didn't make either of them look good.
As far as the cost of the inaugeration . . . I'm not educated enough to have an opinion. How much have other recent inaugurations cost? I'm not a supporter of Bush's, so it's easy to find fault, but I want a little perspective to know that I'm not just giving in to temptation.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*Multitasking* I'll go see if i can find out
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
It's good to know that the left has narcissistic commentators too. Which is worse, Rush's "Talent on Loan from God" or (I forgot his name already) "Like Kryptonite to Stupid."
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Unless I'm mistaken, the money for the inauguration is raised privately so the money spent on the parties as opposed to the troops is a moot point. If you think that kind of money shuld be going elsewhere, blame the people who donate not the President.
While the woman certainly has the right to free speech, its rude to be invited to speak about one subject then go off on a partisan rant that was obviously planned in advance rather than set off by something the anchor said.
Considering that most of the cost wasn't spent on making the party lavish, but on security, which in my opinion is certainly understandable considering the new threats of terrorism and the fact that Bush's presidency has been upsetting to a lot of people, the whole arrogance thing also falls out the window.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote: Unless I'm mistaken, the money for the inauguration is raised privately so the money spent on the parties as opposed to the troops is a moot point. . . . . Considering that most of the cost wasn't spent on making the party lavish, but on security, which in my opinion is certainly understandable considering the new threats of terrorism and the fact that Bush's presidency has been upsetting to a lot of people, the whole arrogance thing also falls out the window.
Now, I thought I had heard some complaining that the cost of security was being passed along to the city of Washington, not being picked up by private donations. Am I mistaken/misunderstanding?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think they stated that in the article. They said 17 million dollars.